Rightist and leftist group, whats the difference?

[gareb]

---

@ The_Child

i was referring to the politics of the market and its overall tendency to favor the capitalists that run it, or at least the strongest among them. unfortunately, in the socio-economic context; the reality wherein such issues move, not all members of the society can participate well in this arena, due to the inherent inequities of opportunity, as well as economic power. these very same conditions are propagated by capitalism's tendency to favor the strongest at the expense of the rest, widening income gaps and purchasing power among different socio-economic classes. capitalism favors those that have capital, the economic fuel that runs the market engines.

an impulse of market competition is to eliminate the other competitor by means of efficient production, thereby control of prices and product quality. this is advantageous to consumers but only for a time up until there are only a few or only one participant left in the market of the product; a case of all others being eliminated through competition (mergers, acquisition, takeovers, etc.). a few participants can act as a cartel effectively controlling prices, eliminating the essence of competition.

there are certain monopolies that are deemed 'natural'. these are those that cater to basic services and utilities. they are deemed as such because to introduce market concepts to this arena would lead to a wasteful utilization of resources. for example are utilities such as water and electricity. a profusion of firms creating power plants, or dams and water sanitation facilities to serve a community would be a replication of facilities wherein one could have done well. because these utilities are deemed to be inimical to the interest of the public, the control of these utilities are held by the government.

however, the neoliberal Friedrich August von Hayek expressedly believed in the power of private (not public) monopolies in producing and harnessing new technology: a complete 180 degree turnaround to the neoliberal notions of laissez-faire enterprise.

it seems now that the whole assertion of private monopolies was the cover of a much more alarming problem: that of excess capital that faces lackluster demand. to dispose of this excess capital, new avenues have to be found and exploited. one of these new avenues are now the public utilities and services that are slowly being privatized in favor of firms that want to dispose of their capital, effectively converting public service-oriented monopolies to private, profit-oriented monopolies.

as it goes, the market fundamentalist views of laissez-faire capitalism of the neoliberals are only held as long as they favor the private sector. once monopoly capitalism asserts itself as as more viable alternative in favor of the private sector (be damned the rest), then the ideological constructs of market fundamentalism is discarded; just like Keynesianism was given the boot in the 1970's.

[The_Child]

there are certain monopolies that are deemed 'natural'. these are those that cater to basic services and utilities. they are deemed as such because to introduce market concepts to this arena would lead to a wasteful utilization of resources. for example are utilities such as water and electricity. a profusion of firms creating power plants, or dams and water sanitation facilities to serve a community would be a replication of facilities wherein one could have done well. because these utilities are deemed to be inimical to the interest of the public, the control of these utilities are held by the government. as i said, monopolies only exist when there is unfair competition. Government intervention and the idea of the Tribe or general-welfare or public interest is a reason for unfair competition.


i was referring to the politics of the market and its overall tendency to favor the capitalists that run it, or at least the strongest among them. unfortunately, in the socio-economic context; the reality wherein such issues move, not all members of the society can participate well in this arena, due to the inherent inequities of opportunity, as well as economic power. these very same conditions are propagated by capitalism's tendency to favor the strongest at the expense of the rest, widening income gaps and purchasing power among different socio-economic classes. capitalism favors those that have capital, the economic fuel that runs the market engines. it is a means of eliminating the weaker creatures in society. "survival of the fittest" but we should consider that Man being a rational animal could only survive in Anne Rice's Lestat would call the "Savage Garden". If man does not use his rational powers, then he/she is bound to the mercy of his/her environment. The Market as i keep on saying, when left alone, is always neutral. it kills the weak, rewards the strong. The weak are those who in their free choice doesn't work for "food" using their rational capabilities, the Strong are those who are able to use their rational capabilities for survival.


Friedrich August von Hayek expressedly believed in the power of private (not public) monopolies in producing and harnessing new technology: a complete 180 degree turnaround to the neoliberal notions of laissez-faire enterprise.
why do you think its 180 turnaround rather than a complement?

[gareb]

as i said, monopolies only exist when there is unfair competition. Government intervention and the idea of the Tribe or general-welfare or public interest is a reason for unfair competition.

so you are suggesting that every public utility (water, sewerage, electricity, transportation facilities, etc.) and social services (food security, education, health, housing, etc.) should be subjected to market forces, despite the fact that these hold prime public interests and that anything adverse that will happen to these due to market forces will affect, not only the players in the market, but everyone?

it is a means of eliminating the weaker creatures in society. "survival of the fittest" but we should consider that Man being a rational animal could only survive in Anne Rice's Lestat would call the "Savage Garden". If man does not use his rational powers, then he/she is bound to the mercy of his/her environment. The Market as i keep on saying, when left alone, is always neutral. it kills the weak, rewards the strong. The weak are those who in their free choice doesn't work for "food" using their rational capabilities, the Strong are those who are able to use their rational capabilities for survival.

i wonder who you could regard Spencer's 'social darwinism' as 'crude' when you describe precisely how it is suppose to work. anyway, i find this view simplistic for four main reasons.

first, darwinism's 'free-for-all' is sound with evolutionary biology, but not sociology and economics, since both aim not for supremacy of only certain segments of the population but for general welfare and survivial for all.

second, the idea that the market tends to eliminate the 'weak' only sees a portion of the picture. the 'weak' in reality are actually the masses that sustain the market out of consumer demand; threaten the welfare of the 'weak' and you threaten the whole market itself.

third, it has been proven time and time again that market forces being left alone has dire political as well as social consequences. that is why even the arch-prophets of neoliberalism are mum with regards to the use of trade subsidies and tax cuts, even adjustments on interest rates and money supply which are considered as governmental tools to ecourage growth, hence government intervensions to economic policies.

fourth, there has never been a sustainable laissez-faire capitalism no matter how many times certain economies attempt it. prior to the 1870's series of recessions, the 1930's Great Depression, and even after the Oil Shock of the 70's up until the Reaganomics and Thatcherism of the 80's and 90's; both of which still applied huge amounts of government intervention in the economic arena despite the pretense of classical economic orthodoxy.

why do you think its 180 turnaround rather than a complement?

pretty obvious. neoliberalism that favors market competition because competition is suppose to "produce the general good", now favors a monopoly by private institutions that cannot be directly accountable to the public.

double standards are applied as long as the private interests are at stake. so much for the "general good".

[The_Child]

so you are suggesting that every public utility (water, sewerage, electricity, transportation facilities, etc.) and social services (food security, education, health, housing, etc.) should be subjected to market forces, despite the fact that these hold prime public interests and that anything adverse that will happen to these due to market forces will affect, not only the players in the market, but everyone? yes. like it does matter? these are commodities, no matter what we do, theyll always be under the mercy of market forces, the least evil is to give free space to move without the intervention of government. Do you think that government intervention would suit the public interest, granting for argument's sake that it does, it still alienates the minority from the state. There will still be people who would be deprived because of government intervention.

i wonder who you could regard Spencer's 'social darwinism' as 'crude' when you describe precisely how it is suppose to work. anyway, i find this view simplistic for four main reasons. please rephrase the underlined, I i didnt quite understand you.

second, the idea that the market tends to eliminate the 'weak' only sees a portion of the picture. the 'weak' in reality are actually the masses that sustain the market out of consumer demand; threaten the welfare of the 'weak' and you threaten the whole market itself.


yes. but you have probably misinterpreted me when i said "eliminate" i guess its my fault, what i meant by eliminate is rather to maintain equilibrium. Eliminate not the entire class, but rather eliminate the rather insignificants.


but not sociology and economics, since both aim not for supremacy of only certain segments of the population but for general welfare and survivial for all. yes, but isnt reciprocal altruism a misnomer because its motivation is selfish. Darwinian Perspective could still be applied in Social reality.

third, it has been proven time and time again that market forces being left alone has dire political as well as social consequences. that is why even the arch-prophets of neoliberalism are mum with regards to the use of trade subsidies and tax cuts, even adjustments on interest rates and money supply which are considered as governmental tools to ecourage growth, hence government intervensions to economic policies. perhaps, but arent you trying to blame "laissez-faire" for the sins of mixed-economies.

fourth, there has never been a sustainable laissez-faire capitalism no matter how many times certain economies attempt it. prior to the 1870's series of recessions, the 1930's Great Depression, and even after the Oil Shock of the 70's up until the Reaganomics and Thatcherism of the 80's and 90's; both of which still applied huge amounts of government intervention in the economic arena despite the pretense of classical economic orthodoxy.
thats true, but although Reagan and Thatcher may be responsible for resuscitating classical liberalism to neoliberalism in the global stage, both countries across the pond are still mixed-economies.

[gareb]

yes. like it does matter? these are commodities, no matter what we do, theyll always be under the mercy of market forces, the least evil is to give free space to move without the intervention of government. Do you think that government intervention would suit the public interest, granting for argument's sake that it does, it still alienates the minority from the state. There will still be people who would be deprived because of government intervention.

it matters a lot. subjecting these to market forces ruins societies precisely because these are basic essentials with prime public interest at stake. if you subject these public utilities to market competition, what results is the redundancy of facilities and wastage of resources as i have described in an earlier post. subject these utilities and social services to privatization, and what you will get is higher cost, especially in private monopolies (like Maynilad, Manila Waters and Meralco for example) for the consumers and less public accountability; private firms are accountable only to their shareholders, public firms to the government, hence the public.

Do you think that government intervention would suit the public interest, granting for argument's sake that it does, it still alienates the minority from the state. There will still be people who would be deprived because of government intervention.

please cite an example.

please rephrase the underlined, I i didnt quite understand you.

you described quite well how 'social darwinism' was suppose to work in that statement i quoted from you in my last post.

yes. but you have probably misinterpreted me when i said "eliminate" i guess its my fault, what i meant by eliminate is rather to maintain equilibrium. Eliminate not the entire class, but rather eliminate the rather insignificants.

that would be fine if the whole 'elimination game' only applies in designated areas that market forces and competition are allowed to play and not others.

yes, but isnt reciprocal altruism a misnomer because its motivation is selfish. Darwinian Perspective could still be applied in Social reality.

its motivation is selfish, true, but it accommodates for everyone; more or less similar with the concept of 'enlightened selfishness'. the darwinian perspective is evident and can be applied in social reality, that fact should never be denied. but that does not mean it is the only perspective, and that on its own, it is effective. it should be seen that such analysis and perspective is apt in certain conditions, but not in all.

perhaps, but arent you trying to blame "laissez-faire" for the sins of mixed-economies.

not even close. what i am trying to say is that laissez-faire capitalism has been shown to be ineffective and untenable as an economic ideology in guaranteeing equitable share of goods and resources, hence prosperity for all, since they will forever rely on state intervention to sustain such economy. but at the same time, Keynesian economics has also failed on its promise of providing and sustaining economic growth, as can be seen with its abandonment in the late 1970's in an ill-advised move to go back of laissez-faire capitalism.

both ideologies still fail to account for and acknowledge the existence certain factors that were not there before in the early phases of capitalism. the most prominent of these are the huge volume of capital with no venues for investment, saturated local markets of the industrialized countries, and a decreasing consumer demand for manufactured goods. though economic policy makers are aware of these factors and trends, instead of incorporating these in their economic policies, what usually happens in that economic ideologies such as 'laissez-faire' are made to service and cover up for these trends, with the hopes of sustaining levels of growth; an essential in keeping their economies afloat as critical portions of it rely on securities.

thats true, but although Reagan and Thatcher may be responsible for resuscitating classical liberalism to neoliberalism in the global stage, both countries across the pond are still mixed-economies.

exactly. it is precisely Reagan and Thatcher's self-serving 'neoliberalism' being largely a sham, that shows us how unsustainable it can be to let the the main concepts of free enterprise (trade liberalization, privatization and deregulation) play simultaneously. as one international banking organization once commented that the irony was that deregulation ultimately led to even more state intervention than before.

[The_Child]

it matters a lot. subjecting these to market forces ruins societies precisely because these are basic essentials with prime public interest at stake. it is a presumption that it will ruin society. As ive said before, Capitall when left freely would always flow to the maximum rate of return. If there would be wastage of resources, the market would correct it. When any business firm would lose resources without any return of investment, and when left uncorrected, would spell out its ruin. If firm X, sells water, firm x would always find a way to maximize profit by increasing efficiency and productivity. Wasted resources equates to wasted profits. Successively, the market would kill it.

So in someway, a firm, by serving its self-interests such as profit, help serves others.
Now if government takes hold of such firm(public utilities like water) what is the self-interest of the government? a noble ideal would be to serve the people, but the people is diverse, therefore to serve the people, the government needs to approximate by serving the majority, so where the place the minority then? Thats the noble ideal, but then left to the whims of politician, the tool that is government intervention is left to the mercy of pressure-politics. Perhaps, an influential churchmen, who holds a considerable voting bloc, could dictate public policy. A public policy that would give leverage to the church compared to other sectors.

Now if it is left to laissez-faire, no government intervention, the market would easily kill the weak players of the market, giving way to a better firm. If we put the government into the equation, unfair competition comes in, and because of this, we are giving more power to inefficient firms to survive and spread its inefficiency to the entire system, through their pressuring power. Monopolies are made because of this.


that would be fine if the whole 'elimination game' only applies in designated areas that market forces and competition are allowed to play and not others. Capitalism is the era of commodification. What is left unembraced by the market?

t laissez-faire capitalism has been shown to be ineffective and untenable as an economic ideology in guaranteeing equitable share of goods and resources, hence prosperity for all, since they will forever rely on state intervention to sustain such economy

if i got you right, who ever said lassez-faire capitalism guarantees equitable share of goods and resources? the very opposite. Capitalism, requires the stratification of society into classes to maintain an equilibrium. Those who couldnt keep up, are killed in the process. In capitalism, rational Selfishness is a virtue.

but that does not mean it is the only perspective, and that on its own, it is effective. it should be seen that such analysis and perspective is apt in certain conditions, but not in all. thats true, thats true, that is why its a matter of efficiency eh?

the most prominent of these are the huge volume of capital with no venues for investment, saturated local markets of the industrialized countries, and a decreasing consumer demand for manufactured goods. though economic policy makers are aware of these factors and trends, instead of incorporating these in their economic policies, what usually happens in that economic ideologies such as 'laissez-faire' are made to service and cover up for these trends, with the hopes of sustaining levels of growth; an essential in keeping their economies afloat as critical portions of it rely on securities. every system has its anomaly, its bug. But if we compare it to others, again, which is more efficient? is it not the system i am advocating for?

that shows us how unsustainable it can be to let the the main concepts of free enterprise (trade liberalization, privatization and deregulation) play simultaneously. i dont think it does.

well anyways, cheers!

[gareb]

If there would be wastage of resources, the market would correct it. When any business firm would lose resources without any return of investment, and when left uncorrected, would spell out its ruin.... So in someway, a firm, by serving its self-interests such as profit, help serves others. Now if it is left to laissez-faire, no government intervention, the market would easily kill the weak players of the market, giving way to a better firm.

again, that's a limited view of the whole issue. theoretically, the concept of market competition is sound, but only to a certain degree. it can only be applied to certain situations inside economies, and not necessarily all. if you fight alongside a theory and your enemy just happens to be reality, expect to lose.

the reailty of natural monopolies with regards to utilities is a well-accepted concept in economic systems. everybody does it because it's the most logical thing to do. we talk about 'correction of wastage' which is really a difficult idea to translate into reality in an arena such as public utilties where market forces and the arena itself is not as they usually are. a simple example would be electrical poles. it wont only be a wastage of resources to have ten different electrical poles running parallel with each other on the sides of the street, it would also be unsightly. add to that multiple dams/ multiple power plants and substations...

another factor with regards to utilities is that the demand must not be encouraged to go up because to do so would have adverse consequences to the environment. MCWD encouraging people to waste more water so that it can earn more profit is a ridiculous idea. but that, perversely, is what classical economic theory postulates firms to do. this goes beyond market principles where demand and supply are more or less fexible.

Now if government takes hold of such firm(public utilities like water) what is the self-interest of the government? a noble ideal would be to serve the people, but the people is diverse, therefore to serve the people, the government needs to approximate by serving the majority, so where the place the minority then? Thats the noble ideal, but then left to the whims of politician, the tool that is government intervention is left to the mercy of pressure-politics... If we put the government into the equation, unfair competition comes in, and because of this, we are giving more power to inefficient firms to survive and spread its inefficiency to the entire system, through their pressuring power... thats true, thats true, that is why its a matter of efficiency eh?

im glad you were able to mention the reality of 'pressure politics' in this exchange. it is a force that, if harnessed properly, can be a means for social reform. unfortunately, 'pressure politics' as it exists in this country is not for the majority, but for the minority who wants to maintain a skewered social order with much of the resources concentrated on them.

but a fortunate fact with regards to pressure politics is that in dealing with utilities, it is agreed by the vast populace that these utilities should be served at the lowest possible cost and at the most efficient manner possible. this means, of course, that there is uniform interest across the social strata, if we treat those exprectations by the people as primary.

now i have already expounded on the inefficiencies and wastage of subjecting it to market competition as well as the inherent incompatibility of the fundamentals of market competition with public utilities. so it appears now that to meet the expectations of the public with regards to the service rendered by these utilities, we must look at alternative means of handling them other than subjecting them to ruinous market forces.

what is left, of course, is to convert these utilities into public monopolies. public, since that would subject their accountability and efficiency to the people, as well as removing the profit motive that raises costs. though admittedly subject to the possible graft that's associated with public enterprises, at least the people has more control with its administration that compared to private enterprises. we know, of course, that this political reality has a different set of solutions, and not entirely economic ones.

Monopolies are made because of this.

monopolies are also made as an end result of market competition; the 'winner take all' attitude of companies who have either merged, forcibly took over, or simply killed off the competition by any of the various means.

Capitalism is the era of commodification. What is left unembraced by the market?

absolutely nothing. but that is not a license, as i have provided for above, to apply market fundamentals where it clearly does not belong.

if i got you right, who ever said lassez-faire capitalism guarantees equitable share of goods and resources? the very opposite. Capitalism, requires the stratification of society into classes to maintain an equilibrium. Those who couldnt keep up, are killed in the process. In capitalism, rational Selfishness is a virtue.

exactly. all the more reason to control it since what it refers to as 'those who cannot keep up' are not only the losing participants in the market fundamentals game, but also the vast populace which keeps the market engine, hence economy, going. (job retrenchments, higher costs of living due to privatization, destruction of nascent local industries due to import deregulation, lower spending power hence lower effective demand due to inflation, etc.)

every system has its anomaly, its bug. But if we compare it to others, again, which is more efficient? is it not the system i am advocating for?

it is a self-administered bug thats slowly wreaking havoc into the entire system. what is astounding is that this fact is still largely denied. and no, it is not efficient at all. refer above.

i dont think it does.

how Reaganomics and especially Thatcherism unravelled the American and British economies, respectively, would attest it's unsustanability. in simple terms, those three dogmas of neoliberalism simply cannot be used together side by side, which means, of course that neoliberalism, as an economic ideology, is largely a failure.

cheers!

[The_Child]

it is a self-administered bug thats slowly wreaking havoc into the entire system. what is astounding is that this fact is still largely denied. and no, it is not efficient at all. refer above.
could it still be a bug if it is self-administered?

how Reaganomics and especially Thatcherism unravelled the American and British economies, respectively, would attest it's unsustanability. in simple terms, those three dogmas of neoliberalism simply cannot be used together side by side, which means, of course that neoliberalism, as an economic ideology, is largely a failure. three things. It is safe to assume that neoliberalism during those times was still emerging so one couldnt judge neoliberalism as a whole if it is merely contextualized during time of reagan and thatcher.
Secondly, when did sustainability became the criteria for success or failure? thirdly, it what sense do you mean that reaganomics and thatcherism unravelled the american and british economies?


another factor with regards to utilities is that the demand must not be encouraged to go up because to do so would have adverse consequences to the environment. MCWD encouraging people to waste more water so that it can earn more profit is a ridiculous idea. but that, perversely, is what classical economic theory postulates firms to do. this goes beyond market principles where demand and supply are more or less fexible. of course not. would that be a sound business policy to waste resourceS? It is not good for business and it is not good for the consumer. Strategies are made to evade from this bad policies in long-terms.


monopolies are also made as an end result of market competition; the 'winner take all' attitude of companies who have either merged, forcibly took over, or simply killed off the competition by any of the various means

yes, but how long could a natural monopoly last in the market without being productive?

yeh. and cheers!

[gareb]

apologies for the very later reply. the impetus for resolving certain more tangible problems superseded the one that urged me to go online

could it still be a bug if it is self-administered?

or poison, if you want it that way. we have plenty of IMF and World Bank experiments of applying the neo-liberalist dogma to economies only to watch them waste away and end up in ruins. the most glaring example would be the former communist states of the USSR after its dissolution in 1991. IMF and World Bank prescribed widespread privatization, trade liberalization and currency decontrol. the economies of Russia, the Balkans and the rest of Eastern Europe collapsed under this oppressive 'shock therapy' initiated by the neo-liberals entrenched inside these institutions; a move that ran counter to the Marshall Plan that the West initiated on its defeated rivals after World War II.

is safe to assume that neoliberalism during those times was still emerging so one couldnt judge neoliberalism as a whole if it is merely contextualized during time of reagan and thatcher.

no. neoliberalism's basic tenets have always been the same; the 'minimalist' role of the government in the economy. thatcher and reagan tried it in the late 80's, but as it turned out, both at the end resorted to huge government subsidies to salvage their economies. WB and IMF tried it during the 90's to transform the centralized economies of the former-USSR states into market economies, but at the end relied on huge aid in the form of soft loans to save these economies when their prescriptions only managed to worsen the scenario even into the brink of civil war. curiously, that's also what bush is pretending to do now despite the fact that the US government itself is subsidizing its own agricultural and industrial sectors.

as it appears now, the more they pretend to depart from 'state intervention', the more they need it as a safeguard that there will be a 'lender of last resort' or a 'guarantor' once speculative booms, such as that which happened in 2000-2001, burst and massive bankruptcies are announced.

Secondly, when did sustainability became the criteria for success or failure?

all the time. if you cannot sustain an economic boom with a set of economic policy prescriptions that you administer, you are a failure.

consider Keynesian economics. it almost became unchallenged truth until the early 70's when it was (or seemed) to be able to sustain considerable economic growth since the end of WWII. the boom was able to gloss over the effects of social inequalities as economies were growing in the developed countries and the effects of these were felt all over the world. however, when the time came that it was no longer to sustain the economic growth it promised through demand management, it was treated as a 'failure', and consequently replaced by neoliberalism; something that in itself was unable to bring back the 'golden age' of economic growth of the late 50's to the early 70's.

thirdly, it what sense do you mean that reaganomics and thatcherism unravelled the american and british economies?

unemployment and inflation was in astronomical heights; the later was induced to combat growing trade deficits as a result of widespread lowering of tax rates, especially in the business sector, done to encourage more investment. more or less the same scenario in both countries, with the soaring public debt for the US at the end of reagan's term, and a skyrocketing unemployment rate after britain's thatcher.

of course not. would that be a sound business policy to waste resourceS? It is not good for business and it is not good for the consumer. Strategies are made to evade from this bad policies in long-terms.

i am glad you agree. but classical liberalism would however say no. to simplify what it says, everything is done is pursuit of profit, as everyone pursuing profit eventually would lead to more efficient and more affordable goods managed through competition. to achieve the maximization of profit, at least one of either demand and supply should be held flexible.

with the example i gave above, both demand and supply are more or less held stable. in fact, it is even supply that varies most of the time. but in cases of surplus supply, it's simply not a policy to increase demand. you seem to forget that in the context of profit maximization, 'to waste resources' is a phrase not applied to products which have already been sold. 'waste of resource' is wherein resources are lost and no equal amount of return was made.

another valuable economic insight that has been lost as a consequence of the fierce market competition, hence desperate profit maximization, is the insight for long-term consequences. present day capitalism's make or break speculation. blowing up economic bubbles beyond the point which can be accommodated by their economies, hopelessly bursting, leading to ruinous and widespread social effects.

yes, but how long could a natural monopoly last in the market without being productive?

if your definition of being 'in the market' would be to 'subject it to competition' then i believe i have already given you a picture of how that would look like. but if being 'in the market' you mean to maintain it as it is; a natural monopoly based on need, then as its name would suggest, it will last as long as the widespread social need of the most efficient and least costly basic utilities such as these, are present.

[The_Child]

OT:

pardon me. im lost for now. i have to recollect my thoughts on all this. been a long time.